Tuesday, June 24, 2008

a new take on circumcision (pt. 2).

after reading a comment posted in my blog from a man who is against circumcision, i decided to do some research (as always)...and this is what i have found to be the most ACCURATE, UNBIASED research from the federal government, not from yay or naysayers either way...and i am going to follow this. it was stated in the comment that 97% of Christians are not circumcised...i have not found proof for or against that data, but it doesn't sound accurate to me. in another blog i also read that only 15% of men in the world are now circumcised. i also find that hard to believe. so...this is what the federal government has to say about it:

"Circumcision is the surgical removal of foreskin from the penis of an infant boy. The operation is usually performed for cultural, religious, or cosmetic reasons rather than for medical reasons. Some organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, maintain there is insufficient evidence that routine circumcision is medically necessary. However, there is research suggesting that some health benefits may be gained, including a slightly decreased risk of developing penile cancer, a lower chance of urinary tract infections in newborns, and a potentially lessened risk of HIV transmission.
AHRQ's new report is an analysis of hospital-based circumcisions in 2005. Among its findings:

-- In the West, only 31 percent of newborn boys were circumcised in hospitals in 2005. That compares with 75 percent in the Midwest, 65 percent in the Northeast, and 56 percent in the South. Factors influencing circumcision rates may include insurance coverage and immigration from Latin America and other areas where circumcision is less common.

-- Nationwide, about 56 percent of newborn boys—1.2 million infants—were circumcised. The national rate has remained relatively stable for a decade. It peaked at 65 percent in 1980.

--About 60 percent of circumcisions were billed to private insurance, 31 percent were billed to Medicaid, nearly 3 percent were charged to other public programs, and about 4 percent were uninsured. " ~ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services)

now, i am all for every parent making their own decision about the matter. just thought that i would clear up a few questions for myself. i have read repeatedly that circumcision results in more protection from HIV. it undoubtedly looks better according to many, i read that about 65% of women prefer uncircumcised penises (i know i about women and sexual preference concerning circumcision here), and there is the penile cancer issue. i know that my father had to be circumcised in his mid 60's for medical neccessity. we had to take turns going to his house to make sure that he had help completing certain tasks. this is also a pretty cool article, which gives reasons why circumcision may be a favorable choice in males.

my decision still remains the same for my unborn child, and the reasons for it are still the same. just thought that i would note what i found while looking for ACCURATE information on the subject.


Joel said...

if you think that "circinfo" is a reliable and accurate site, you have a lot to learn about research.

the truth is that just like a woman's labia, a man's foreskin needs to be washed regularly to stay clean.

thankfully its actually REALLY easy to do so, and a scalpel is a very extreme method to replace water.

as far as your visual preferences are concerned, that is no excuse to cut part of a baby's penis off. what about what HE wants his penis to look like. its not up to you to decide what he wants to look like. not when its a permanent surgery, anyways.

so you might be for all parents making their own decisions, but in reality, it shouldn't be a parent's choice at all. theres no reason to do it to a baby at all. it can be done at ANY age. so if circumcision is so great, he'll get circumcised when he's older anyways. (but guess what, he wont want to - obviously)

the foreskin is as sensitive as lips and fingertips. why would you take that away from someone because of something that MIGHT go wrong, but most likely will never give him anything but pleasure for his entire life?

honeyindigo said...

ok "joel"...this is your opinion, and that's fine (i find it amazingly odd how people only "drop in" to respond to whatever people on blogger post that irks them--such is the way of this site, i guess?) i went to quite a few sites to gather information, not just circinfo, in an attempt to avoid the entire "circumcision bashers" that seem to make this debate the very air they breathe (and are slowly trying to stifle my blog with their "opinions")...none of them are any LESS reliable then the sites that the "circgurus" throw out there as God's Word itself. i wonder if you are saying what you are saying about "circinfo" because it purposely "accepts" if not "supports" circumcision in babies and men?? hmm. something to think about.

i also went to quite a few other sites. i just didn't find the need to turn my blog into a link for outside resources instead of my opinion.

my preferences are just that, mine...and i have parental rights which i choose to exercise. my husband and i both want this is what we are going to go for if we should conceive and give birth to a son. we have that right, and no matter what anyone says, it's not changing (so if you came to my blog to dissuade me on the matter--*sigh* but it won't work).

it SHOULD be a parent's choice, it IS a parent's choice for a reason (and that doesn't look like it's changing anytime soon)...and there is NO one in this world that can force a parent to make a decision either way about you lose many in your "war" against circumcision. this is not about what "should be". heck, the world "should be" full of peace. this is about "what is". and until circumcision becomes illegsl (which i doubt it will), "it is" a choice that i exercise the right to make for my child.

the foreskin serves as no health benefit to men, it is purely sexual, and uncircumcised penises are not preferred by most women. many of them are illkept, they stink, and they harbor germs and disease, unlike the female genitalia, which cleanses itself. by removing it, i am not removing any health benefits from my child, and obviously leaving him as a slightly higher risk for certain infections, caner, HIV, and a regret that he doesn't look like at least 56% of his peers.

but alas, thanks for stopping by my blog anyway, "joel"!